BDS

I assume that everyone knows this, but genes don't "want" to maximize their own propogation." (Ms. Siv) Nor do they "seek" to do so. Words like "want" and "seek" are personifying metaphors.

Hooboy !!

I will agree that my understanding of "chaos" is not great, but randomness, or the appearance of randomness is a defining quality of chaos.

Hooboy !!

Words like "best" are subjective and entirely meaningless from a macro perspective. Returning to the criteria that defines what is "wise", time becomes the delimiting factor. There are after all many ways to solve any given problem. Over time, one solution usually rises above the others and becomes the defacto "best" way. In natural selection, random events are just as responsible for determining what does and does not survive. No amount of adaptation will prepare an organism for being struck by a meteor for example. It took a tremendous amount of time for a peacock to evolve, but is it the "best" design for a bird? I mean, what are those feathers good for any way? (rhetorical) Ask me again in a million years. If the peacock is still around, you will have your answer. None of this implies an intelligence. It is just a stratification process, sifting through the millions if not billions of various mutations in any given generation. Species come and go. Some faster than others.

Too much energy goes into looking at a particular species or individual organisms.

Life on this planet continues to exist, even after several mass extinctions. That is impressive. That cockroaches and alligators remain virtually the same after millions of years is much less impressive.

The wisdom of natural selection is most evident in life's diversity and it's ability to sustain it's self.

RBH

Hoobou wroteThe defining property of chaos is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Chaotic phenomena, e.g., a chaotic time series, often pass most statistical tests for randomness, but that's not their defining property.

RBH

Hooboy !!

Ugh!

That stuff hurts my head. I read a book some time back on fuzzy logic, because I was interested in AI, but I have never been able to wrap my head around chaos theory.

Peez

I don't know what you mean by "a macro perspective," but I doubt that I can agree with you here.That is quite an assertion. Natural selection, by definition, is non-random. In some cases natural selection will be the only factor determining survival, in some cases it will be the dominant factor, in some cases it will be an equal factor, in some cases it will be a minor factor, and in some cases it will not be involved at all. So what?Natural selection does not care about individuals, it cares about average reproductive success with a particular trait. That being said, random events can certainly be important in evolution. Is there anyone who denies this?That depends on how one defines "best."Reproductive success. (rhetorical)Are you suggesting that the peacock will be extinct in the next million years? It may well be, but it is no more likely than many other species of birds.Agreed.Yup.Why do you say that?:huh: I don't see this as particularly surprising. All life going extinct would be much more impressive.I find neither particularly impressive.I see no wisdom whatsoever in natural selection. The vast majority of species have gone extinct, and the vast, vast, vast majority of living things have died. If you produce enough organisms, a few are bound to survive. So what?

Peez